SQ of 1.186, best ever! (Again)

[PeterSt]

Just to let you know :

I have been trying to find the limits on the upper side of things, seeking for the more extreme side of this sound (the intended more rough highs). It takes quite some time to find the real limits, but it is around this :
(notice : this can all be about processor speed, with mine ultra low at 215MHz per processor core (reported as 430MHz with Hyperthreading on).

Q1 x xQ1 x DevBufSize = 6 x 24 x 4096. Make this a little higher and sound "scratches" at the interval of this (buffer) size. Careful, because this is not easily audible and it needs "fluent" music to detect that. Think of a repeat around 4-6 seconds.

SFS = 210. Make this higher (like 270) and sound will stop with a "The data did not arrive in time".

Both seem elementary and work so with Q3,4,5 = 1,1,1. I did not try other Q3,4,5 settings and I don't know whether there's a relation, but normally yes (could be Q5 alone). So notice that 0.9z-9b would allow for much higher settings of either Q1 etc. and SFS.

Also, by now I am sure that wheher at this extreme or a bit lower (like Q1 at 6 x 10 and SFS = 120) the roughness of the highs could be just too rough. Maybe too much of Tina Turner in an Australian desert. So to me it looks like there will be a sweetspot somewhere and I still think the Q1 size is key. So, somewhere between 6 x 10 and 6 x 1 ? Notice the granulation of this "presentation" and that it's really 60 and 6 I am talking about and that 6 x 10 is the same as 5 x 12. Anyway, a theoretical 60 possibilities, but all assumed that DevBufSize is 4096 which can also be varied (it's just the product of the three (Q1, xQ1, DevBufSize).

Peter

[juanpmar]

Hi Peter,

I´ve been trying with other settings, like Q1:6,3 and xQ:7,3,2,1 and others in between. Even some of those settings at Device Buffer Size: 2048. In my system I can´t notice substantial differences as to confirm that a setting is better than others. E.g. to Q1:6 and xQ:3 it seems to have less sibilances in the sssss vocals in the track I´m using to test it, but at the same time the fuller sound (the more organic or with a more integrated body) seems to be with the Q1:6 and xQ:10 (I´m always keeping the other Q values at 1 and SFS:120). So, I maintain my preference for the Q1:6 and xQ:10 but what I did is to toe a few mm. the speakers toward the out side of my centered position.
As you don´t want to have only one listening position and you rather to have a good listening position from anywhere in your room I´d suggest you to move a bit your speakers to find again that sound from anywhere. Sometimes the changes in sound are so big with e.g. a new player or in our case with a new software or hardware that could be necessary to rethink again the acoustics in our room or perhaps at least the placement of the speakers. Often a slight change in the position of the speakers returns a sound that´s according to our preferences.

This is just a humble suggestion...

Kind regards,
Juan

[PeterSt]

Thank you very much Juan. Also for that feedback of course.
Peter

[listening]

Hi Peter,

following your thoughts about the interesting area of settings for Q1 Q1x and Buffersize I decided to use a dice to determine useful settings 
There came out Q1XQ1x = 9, Buffer=4096 and SFS=120.

Muscic flow and swing are here again 

Georg

P.S.: Will try other settings furthermore ...

[arvind]

Hi Guys,

After a number of permutations & combinations with the Q  & SFS settings, I have arrived at the best setting on my set up as follows:

Q1: 14, Q3: 1, Q4: 1, Q5: 5.
xQ1: 1
SFS: 2 (120).

The SQ is very soft & musical, just the way I like it.

Best regards,

Arvind

PS: Peter this has also solved the issue of playback stopping after 4/5 tracks.

[PeterSt]

Small report about a "milestone" :

I have many albums which I test regularly after the more severe SQ changes. These are always albums which don't work (out). One of these is Thriller from Michael Jackson and I always tried to get it work in "hi-fi" environment. For example, Billy Jean is such a track that works (very) well in disco's, but never in my living room; it just shows too much of the synthesized drums (the whole album).
Well, it now happened the first time that I not only thought it worked well, but I also listened out the whole album. And I can recall that from LP only ...
I honestly even wondered where all those synthesized drums went. So a whole bunch of "surrounding grey" at drum hits was not there anymore ?
Separate from eachother we both noticed even real cymbals, though rather far away.

From there I tried Enigma again (Cross of Changes). This is a more commonly known "grey" kind of music and I mention it more often. This sure has worked in some stage, but it never did anymore for the past two years. Something like : things might have gotten more accurate, but it can emphasize that grey. And for sure W8 doesn't help with that (brings it to the lean side with too few underlaying fundamental - at least here that is so).
This too not only worked now again, but the whole perception went in a direction that we both here said "huh ?". But anyway, no grey highs but very refined instead (and I thus knew already it can do this and it really is a measure for us all).

Then I'm always and ever trying to get a A Whole Lotta Love right (Led Zeppelin). Well, funny, because now it is finally the most clear how the large hits after the sound scape break just are nothing but 100% analog oversteered distortion. Just listen to the start of the track and the guitar and now you can hear the very same from there.  So those hits always sounded like that to me but with the option "is it a synth or what is it actually ?" and with the notice those hits are way louder than the remainder of the track. But the whole thing has been recorded all the way into "the red", so that's why.
How it happens that just now this has become so clear ? better accuracy again or something.

There's also the Made In Japan (Deep Purple) and how the cymbals are rendered in there;
This has always been a matter of how much they are audible to begin with, which is very different from how well they are rendered. So, I recall from LP that they were rather grey, and possibly the more I played the LP the more grey it became;
While this is actually my reference, digital sure improved there, but it still merely was about the loudness of them (the cymbals). Today this changed;
Now it's cymbals of various sizes and colours and nothing much grey about them. The best ever (from that album) I'd say.
On another note there's the less discernable for the better or worse : the Hammond. So I recall from another report from me somewhere in the past months (6 months ago ?) that this went so square that it became nasty. Here too it's the missing fundamentals that made it that - at least that's how I interpret it today.

Notice that at this moment this is with W7 (not saying that W8 will be bad - I just don't know at this moment because of too many other changes like isolated USB and on water floating NOS1) with the notice that my current sig (of W7) does not show the Appointment Scheme Core 3-5 which is what I'm currently using.

Peter

[Gerard]

Small report about a "milestone" :

I have many albums which I test regularly after the more severe SQ changes. These are always albums which don't work (out). One of these is Thriller from Michael Jackson and I always tried to get it work in "hi-fi" environment. For example, Billy Jean is such a track that works (very) well in disco's, but never in my living room; it just shows too much of the synthesized drums (the whole album).
Well, it now happened the first time that I not only thought it worked well, but I also listened out the whole album. And I can recall that from LP only ...
I honestly even wondered where all those synthesized drums went. So a whole bunch of "surrounding grey" at drum hits was not there anymore ?
Separate from eachother we both noticed even real cymbals, though rather far away.

From there I tried Enigma again (Cross of Changes). This is a more commonly known "grey" kind of music and I mention it more often. This sure has worked in some stage, but it never did anymore for the past two years. Something like : things might have gotten more accurate, but it can emphasize that grey. And for sure W8 doesn't help with that (brings it to the lean side with too few underlaying fundamental - at least here that is so).
This too not only worked now again, but the whole perception went in a direction that we both here said "huh ?". But anyway, no grey highs but very refined instead (and I thus knew already it can do this and it really is a measure for us all).

Then I'm always and ever trying to get a A Whole Lotta Love right (Led Zeppelin). Well, funny, because now it is finally the most clear how the large hits after the sound scape break just are nothing but 100% analog oversteered distortion. Just listen to the start of the track and the guitar and now you can hear the very same from there.  So those hits always sounded like that to me but with the option "is it a synth or what is it actually ?" and with the notice those hits are way louder than the remainder of the track. But the whole thing has been recorded all the way into "the red", so that's why.
How it happens that just now this has become so clear ? better accuracy again or something.

There's also the Made In Japan (Deep Purple) and how the cymbals are rendered in there;
This has always been a matter of how much they are audible to begin with, which is very different from how well they are rendered. So, I recall from LP that they were rather grey, and possibly the more I played the LP the more grey it became;
While this is actually my reference, digital sure improved there, but it still merely was about the loudness of them (the cymbals). Today this changed;
Now it's cymbals of various sizes and colours and nothing much grey about them. The best ever (from that album) I'd say.
On another note there's the less discernable for the better or worse : the Hammond. So I recall from another report from me somewhere in the past months (6 months ago ?) that this went so square that it became nasty. Here too it's the missing fundamentals that made it that - at least that's how I interpret it today.

Notice that at this moment this is with W7 (not saying that W8 will be bad - I just don't know at this moment because of too many other changes like isolated USB and on water floating NOS1) with the notice that my current sig (of W7) does not show the Appointment Scheme Core 3-5 which is what I'm currently using.

Peter

Funny you mentioned Mischael Jackson. I always wondered why his albums are so "Bad"  . A multi million guy and than make such recordings.
Indeed i do not have the idear anymore that i can call this bad recordings.

 

[PeterSt]

Indeed i do not have the idear anymore that i can call this bad recordings.

Hey Gerard,

Since exactly when ?

Peter

[Gerard]

Indeed i do not have the idear anymore that i can call this bad recordings.

Hey Gerard,

Since exactly when ?

Peter

Sorry at this moment.. I really never played his albums because of the fact that i just did not like the recordings.

But that could change after what i hear now. 

[boleary]

Well I hope these impressions are more helpful than annoying....   Because there have been so many changes in so many areas in such a short time around here I've not been able to keep up. Just deciding whether or not I prefer 1.186 or 9Z-9b has, over the last several days, finally been decided. I have not gotten a Silverstone card ....yet: USB is connected to the MB USB3 port. Nor have I jumped back to W7. (Hell, I'm still getting used to the profound positive changes  Bert's amp has brought me, which I purchased four months ago! If the Orlino's have the same amps they must be mind blowing.)

In short, there is something about 1.186 that drives me crazy but not in a good way. However, decision-making was difficult, because every time I retried 1.186 after switching back to 9Z-9b, my first impression, until recently, was always that it's better than 9Z-9b! But, after an hour or so of 1.186 listening, I begin to hear too much distortion, especially when going quickly from soft to loud with female voices.  What's sort of weird is that my body feels this distortion before I hear it and then, when I become conscious of the discomfort I  begin to listen for the problem. The last several days though, I can now spot the problem as soon as I change Q5 to 1, even in 9Z-9b.

What's really great about 1.186, what makes me initially feel that it's better, is the depth of the sound. individual vocals have a kind of depth or dimension that makes them sound more holographic, and present, but then.......my body begins to feel distortion and I tense up.

This makes me wonder, Peter, if the 25 people that you described at your party, early in this thread, felt what I have come to fell about 1.186.

 Listening to 9Z-9b, I am totally taken with how relaxed my sound is and how loud I came play it while retaining the naturalness of vocals. Although 9Z-9b lacks all the dimensionality (not sure if that's even a word) of 1.186, my body feels delighted by the one and not the other. Currently my Q5 is at 3.

Of course my tweeters, Heil type, may not be up to the task of 1.186, but I don't really know about that.

 

[listening]

Hi Peter,

I'm still withstanding to change from W8 to W7 though I had some days of doubt    I feeel that a delicate balance between CPU speed, SFS and buffer settings is necessary. If that's the case the tuning of the "Qs" is promising. Actually 375 MHz are set for the CPU, SFS=40 and buffer size = 512 byte. That's the maximum for the 4 kernels. I tinker with the idea to switch to 8 kernels (AMD). Are this kernels supported by XXHighend in a similar way as the Intel kernels?

Georg   

[Arjan]

Hi boleary,
The differences as you describes between 9z and 1.186 seems to be similar to the differences between W7 and W8 with 1.186.

So 1.186 on W7 will sound more like 9z on W8. But which will have better SQ I do not know.....
Regards, Arjan

[boleary]

Thanks Arjan, I guess my next "tweak" will be W7. I have a hard drive with a W7 and a W8 partition.

[PeterSt]

This makes me wonder, Peter, if the 25 people that you described at your party, early in this thread, felt what I have come to fell about 1.186.

Hey Brian,

I have been waiting for your judgements, and the sole fact that it takes you ages already tells me something (prior to you posting about it).

Had to search a bit myself for my post you refer to, but here it's quoted (it was in another topic) :

All,

After a few days of more listening, this is a sort of verdict :

No matter very interesting at times, I can't cope with this sound. It is too odd/strange and it is tiring. How I am not sure, but it could be too much "buzzing". At least that sense I get from it and I don't perceive real buzzing as such (as with standing (higher frequency) waves).

The two days ago this "measure" came about :

We had a party and 25 or so people were in the room. Of course I have some music playing, like always.
I found myself having more difficulties than with other such occasions at preselecting the music to play. Just trying to envision what would be background music. Not much came to me (with the indication that nothing is "background music" as such anymore).
Ok, music was playing for 2 hours or so, and a next album was selected (actually after an all over "and Peter, when are you going to put up some music ?!") and at the attempt to put up something recognizable for the peeps at the 5th track or so (playing fairly softly) I felt that that was not "it" either. So, walked to the PC and pressed stop, and then a sheer choir of 25 people all at the same time said

"Ohhh, what a relief ! Fi-nal-ly !".



So "intense" (as per Ciska's expression) ?
Way too much of it I'd say.

So yesterday we were talking about this after my explicit question to Ciska "and, is this now so wrong then ?". And this time music played which she knew well. First answer was "nooohh, don't think so", while we both knew we were seeking for what's wrong with it. But the "nooohh" sounded full of doubt and I again didn't know what to do with what I was perceiving from the speakers. And then - big surprise - this is what she said :

"Sounds like those sugar cubes".

Next I told her something like "see, when we take some time we all come to the same conclusion" and I told her that I already wrote it on the forum :

For those who experienced it (e.g. Paul), the sugar cubes in quadruple. No, more. And really, one of the first things which came to me is that it seemed that the SPL was equal everywhere in the room (sugar cubes did the same - I measured).

So this does it and it is final. The isolation will go off again.
Notice : I can't bear these sugar cubes as well. One difference : they make the sound less accurate, while I did not perceive that from the isolated card. But the exhibit is similar : processed sound. Way all over processed.


Peter

So ...
I felt the importance of finding back the exact situation, and it really *IS* important because I can only now see what happened ...
And you guys won't have seen it either I suppose.


This strange sound was about the isolation of the Silverstone USB on the PC side, and that's it (so the quote of my text above was about that situation). From that though followed the isolation on the NOS1 side, and that all went downhill.
Now I don't know how the mind works, but I myself really really forgot what the heck I made my NOS1 float for. Well, see quote above again. It was that. And I think I didn't describe it really or explicitly, because all got snowed under by the Friday = Riddle Day I turned it into. For readers it now seemed just that other tweak and I am sure nobody tried it. But you really should ...

So what I could hear was the microphonic response of the metal. Thus, through that tiring sound I could hear how actually the metal will sound supposing it plays along. This is merely a feeling or hunch than really so, or it must be that I am accidentally good at these things. But mind you, I have been spending such a long time on good footers - you don't want to know. But it's not only footers, it's about general damping.

I also see the relation with the better on/off behavior - BUT which merely comes from the Silverstone card - and how that hammers upon the metal. It's just too strong so to speak. And really, if you look into this : Phasure NOS1 USB Special Measurements - Dirac pulses I just put up yesterday, you' get a hunch of how strongly things can impact with no idea really what it takes to let that happen for less or more of it. Anyway envision the Silverstone just pulling such things really out - at least that is how it comes across to me myself. Thus, that makes it *worse* if not first the response has been taken out of the cabinet.

Of course, you (Brian) don't use the Silverstone and I never tried my Floater without it. But all is (or seems to be) a matter of better front-end behavior and at least you indeed own an amplifier which is around the same as mine. So, a good start for ending up the same like me (and net worse sound because of it). Let me add to it that as far as I'm concerned ony three people have such low noise (at amp output) and you are one of them (unless you hear noise after all, but the amp is inherently dead silent). So, worse again (thinking unsmeared "impact").

Keep in mind guys, this floating really helps and I don't think any type of footer will do this. But *also* keep in mind that before the isolation of the USB this wasn't needed. Well, not that I noticed but with emphasis on the remark that I already used footers which worked out for the very best (and which is well thought over, that is, as far as I could do it).
So, not sure whether this post is useful, but it has to be clear that how the NOS1 is damped is of foremost importance.


On another note I have been playing with W7 for 11 days now which is more than sufficient to know that for the first time in a year's of time I haven't been bothered by anything on any of these 11 days. This is to be compared with W8 where I have been bothered each of the 365 days I used it, though it could be diminished by more selectively (album) playing;
I didn't go back to W8 with this (floating etc.) situation because I just have been eager to listen to all the beauty springing from sheerly everything. But tonight I will go back to W8 and will report tomorrow.

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

So here we go :

Booted into the W8 partition of the dual boot on the XXHighEnd PC. Picked an album of Ott deliberartely because it has been typicle for not wanting to work out on W8. Maybe that's mean, but hey, on W7 it works (though I only tried other albums from Ott - not this one).

First impression : highs highs highs.
Second impression : highs highs highs.
Hmm ...

So, halfway the first track the partner in crime was asked what she thought of this - whether she had remarks maybe. Without words I put the suggestion that something had changed. The usual answer : "I don't know this music, so no".
Yea yea yea.
"Ok, more highs."

Now notice that this time I thought to setup a nice ABX and she didn't know what I was doing. Nothing about W7 vs W8 and I thought to have my ways of making this the most honest comparison.
In the mean time when I was out of the room (door closed) I heard the highs profound. Not good. In-room I heard too much of overtones or something, which I now dedicate to the Silverstone. Say the singing of the ride cymbal but now when that cymbal is not in order. A flavour. I actually wanted her to "find" this, but this didn't happen. Ok ...

First track took over 6 minutes and halfway the 2nd of 9 minutes I more or less showed to give up because nothing came from her - I walked towards the PC in for a reboot but was shouted from the back ""needs more bass maybe ?".

Booted into W7, set the volume equal to the previous round and announced that exactly the same would be playing. Remarks please ?

After not long ... "more wooly".
Not sure whether wooly is a real English audio term but in Dutch we tend to use it for the opposite of stiff bass. However, then you first need to be an audiophile and I don't think she is that.

"The previous one was more detailed".

Without me asking for a quality judgement there came a "I don't know which is better".
Now notice : nobody (like her) comes up with such an expression without explicitly being asked for, which is an indication that all is so different or opposite that you just can't know. At least that's my perception of it.

"Rounder".
So this was the second version of "wooly" which thus not explicitly tells that it's the less stiff bass. However, while I wasn't even really listening because I wanted to stay out of this all, I did notice the more stiff bass from W8 but this was only later (a next round, described below).
What I did this round was now walking outside of the room to explicitly judge the highs there, but nothing. Just all in balance (door again closed behind me).

Again stopped playback halfway the 2nd track, and thought of something new to play. Ok, Shpongle it would be (this is a guy who makes his own synthesizers).

I thought to be more sneaky and while it took as long as the previous rounds to swap tracks, I started the music and now asked : Tell me what disturbs you.
So now there's a clear suggestion that something should disturb while I expect it to be nothing. Notice this is still W7.

The first track of 8 minutes passed by and no words came out of her.
Quickly after the start of the second track there was a "contains much highs" and it came along with a sort of "oops". Not much later : "this doesn't look good for the S'es" but told in a way "not sure".

2 minutes later : "I think I will be tired of this soon".

Good. So the moods were set and the minds too. The "tired" can well be because this is an up-beat track that sweeps you up and is meant to do that, but with the clear notice that it's high transient as well, and the highs keep on hammering. It actually *is* a bit too much of it all and I knew that (because I just never wanted to play it any more under W8). And of course I saw a few things coming for the next W8 round.
Btw imagine that not more words were spoken than quoted here. So no more suggestions than said and no other responses from her than said.

Ok, do you have something to add ? -> "yes, test signals !'.
Hmm ...

After something like 12 minutes in total, back to W8.
Same volume again, which I btw explictly told (previous rounds the same).

First remark without questions asked : "I don't hear anything special any more".
I myself compare this with the similar just nothing mentioned at the first round of this track. Apparently it doesn't do much for either OS ? But to me it did because there was a special metal more space ship sound and under W8 it was more sound than spaceship. But ok.

"This is also a bit busy".
The "busy" here refers to the tiring.
One important notice : this time she said that during the first track already and that track just showed some slow beat. No "tiring" or anything came from her during the W7 round of this.

"Isn't this louder ?"

"Are you sure this isn't louder ? I sure think it is."

Now my blocknote says : Which is tiring more ?
-> Not the best maybe for objectiveness, but apparently I asked this. Oh well. Anyway answer : "I'd say this one".

"Sure, this one."

Without further more words :
"This is often about too much detail, yes ? Well, that's this one."


So that was it;

The only positive I may have noticed from W8 was a somewhat better bass, but I think this is quite easy when there's too few of that. So, maybe I noticed this, but my general feeling throughout was that there was no bass. And that is so much disturbing in itself that there's nothing in my mind that preferred the better extressed bass at times - if at all.

What I noticed myself throughout was all the mid detail in W7 which was not heard at all in W8. Notice that detail in this can only be about somewhat lower frequency On/Off. In no single occasion she came up with this.

The very first tones of W8 struck me as annoying, which was about some kind of flute which, well, annoyed. Layers above it (again). The very first tones of W7 again struck me for the same reason; I wasn't prepared for it, but now that flute was a flute and this is how I recalled the W8 annoying flute.

My idea about the first W8 round was "hissing all over" in the absolute sense. I had difficulties not hearing that back in W7 but at least I noticed that in W7 it had a colour while in W8 it was hissing only. This has my general remark of W8 forever, but now there's this additional "singing" layer which the Silverstone card produces and it felt like illegal overtones all over. Nothing of that in W7 and in my perception only because of the layers added *under* it (the same which brings the colour).

Her expressed "more wooly" and "more round" from W7 are not just "remarks" I think; it merely will be her expression about how W8 is hard as a stone and annoys. So "more round" is "more nice" and I'm sure the audiophile will have said "more analogue".


I can't make it different and I hope it has been sufficiently objective. One small disclaimer : It well can be that my highs output of the speaker is more than average and that just fewer highs output brings back the balance for W8. What I'm saying is that YMMV and that my judgement is still through the glasses of a system which is not yours.

Regards,
Peter